Comment by zug_zug

It's an entertaining joke, but I think most people wouldn't want a partner that mainly chose them because they have money.

(Certainly there's a baseline: most people want a partner with at least the financial resources to take care of themselves.)

When I ask myself who in my friends circles has had the happiest, longest lasting relationships it almost never were the guys with the money.

Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean the inverse is true and you score big time if you are an ugly bum. It just means other qualities matter often more than men think. Being a kind guy, having humor, being emotionally reliable (meaning you're emotionally stable and not easily provoked, angered), being fun to be around, things like that.

I was one of those guys who always had more female friends than the average dude and I can assure you the stuff girls talk about when they consider partners are more often about how a guy is, than what he has.

Not that there aren't women who decide based perceived wealth, of course they exist. But why on earth would you consider catering to those? Got nothing else going for you except money?

> ...once you have more than a small number of options it’s basically impossible (or feels so) to analyze and compare all options to make what seems like a rational and logical decision.So some people will just get frustrated and pick one arbitrarily, or give up and pick none.

In this context (non-work related decisions) I find the “analysis paralysis” stems from a person not knowing themselves well enough or knowing themselves but not sure how to assert it without coming off in an off-putting way.

For the latter, “which restaurant should we go to tonight?” I take that as whatever I pick is it so I pick what I want (as long as I know the other people dont have allergies to the place or something) and that's it. When people ask for a place to pick they usually mean it (from my experience), and they are happy to tag along whereever -- otherwise they will suggest something and ask others opinion, I take that to mean they want to go there but don't want to seem bossy or some other weirdness, and so we go there unless I have a problem with it that I'll voice and suggests something similar.

For the former, I think people are too worried about coming off as "selfish" (and avoid learning themselves). It makes sense because some people really are, and being around them makes decent people really not want to be that. But knowing what you like and want especially when it's not what you have been told to like and want is the biggest hurdle to getting past the “analysis paralysis” here. If you know you and what you like and want than there is really not much to analysis, the analysis should be happening everyday of your life so when these big things come up you have a solid foundation to go on. Otherwise, a lot of it is trying to figure out what the best option is according to outside guidelines you've been given -- which is great for work, but not so much for oneself.

Of course, maybe there are people who can't do the above for whatever, but it's a skill to know what you like and want and a skill to put it into practice without being rude, just like talking to random people or programming. You get better with real world practice/exposure.

It's wild how the brain taps out after like 5–7 options, but dating apps hand you an infinite scroll of possibilities and say "good luck"

Part of my self-administered IT education in my early 20s was to feed my film nerdery through exquisite data hoarding. Automation, NASs, media servers, all of it.

Curiously, I found that the better I got, the less movies I actually watched. It became more about collecting than engaging.

I think this is a corollary to your point: vastly increasing access and reducing our objects of desire to a standardized neatly storable form can easily divert us into hoarding behavior, to the detriment of actual engagement with what’s being hoarded.

Isn’t market for lemons about a situation where consumers can not tell the difference between good and bad quality product so they only buy the cheapest assuming it’s bad.

I would consider that arrange marriages work solely for evolution. Usually, arrange marriages / their families usually advocate the people who married to become parents. Thus for evolutionary purpose, maybe they can be good but at the same time, they might only be together later because of their chidren and that is a tough cycle for a children and some anti natalist points can be made in that regards.

I do think that we humans have such complex brains and hyper-specialization and the amount of intellect in the world when you look at it is ridiculous. So the ideas of arrange marriage working in favour of evolution, and not in favour of the person, while somebody does that is, very interesting...

I think cultures play a major impact in how one approaches dating.

It’s impressive to me how many people mistake relationships for a choice issue when it’s entirely a building in common thing. Obviously, having a shared vision or the ability to built one initially matter but the rest is very much work.

At this point in my life, I’m fairly convinced that some people would be able to build a successful relationship with nearly anyone while other are doomed to fail even with the "perfect" person.

The problem of dating is not so much dating. It’s expectations which are totally unaligned with the reality of life.

> If I have nobody, and you introduce me to someone, then it's simple. They're absolutely worth pursuing.

Not quite. No matter how badly you want a relationship, I guarantee there exist potential partners with whom a relationship would make your life worse, not better. And for most people, the set of absolutely disastrous potential partners is most people.

That makes me think of the Secretary Problem [0]... which apparently is also known as the Fussy Suitor problem, at that makes it extra apropos.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem

There are plenty of people you could be with that would be a strictly worse experience than being alone.

Make the shortest list of requirements, and hard-no traits, possible.

It’s the only way.

But what if the paradox of choice is what’s draining the world of its available love?